Mideast Oil, Roman Slaves

What does oil have to do with Roman slaves?

Empires are driven to more and more extensive conquests by the need for the energy source that sustains them. With Rome it was slaves, and possibly wheat; with the US it is oil.

Roman conquests brought back much spoil: gold, silver, anything portable of value, but historian after historian remarks that the most precious spoils were the captives; they became the slaves that built the aqueducts, the roads, the imperial buildings; they were the labor that quarried the stone and manned the mines (a form of punishment for recalcitrant slaves); most importantly, they were the workers who farmed the huge latifundia that fed the empire (both in Italy and in conquered North Africa), and that drove out the yeoman peasantry. They made the conquerors wealthier than any previous aristocracy; they were also the skilled artisans and the "factory" workers; they drove every part of the imperial machine, except the military: slaves were banned from the military until the last days of the Empire, when Rome became desperate for soldiers.

Today, slavery may still be a problem in sweat shops and the sex trade, but the energy of the American empire is derived, largely, from oil . American warships and planes run on oil, or its derivatives, with a few exceptions, and the American military machine on the ground runs on oil. So, too, does the American economy, yet the US can no longer produce even half of its oil needs; we reached domestic "peak oil" in the 1970's, yet we still needed more and more, which may be one of the reasons why the US became the largest debtor nation in the early 1980's. But it's also the reason why we've become more and more active militarily in the Middle East, and in other places which possess "our" oil.

In other words: (relatively) cheap gasoline and fuel oil, which drives the US economy, is the real reason why we have to have the largest military forces on the planet and why we have to have the "projection capability" to send our military into virtually any country in the world. Speak about subsidies! Think of a good portion of that $600 billion defense budget as a subsidy to the oil companies.

No other nation spends more than about 15 percent (China) of what the US spends on its military (the US spends about $500 billion--over $600 billion if current war expenses are included; the rest of the world combined spends no more than $500 billion on its defense ), and only the last empire, the UK, has much projection capability--but nothing compared to ours.

We do not have this huge military establishment to keep world peace; we have it so that we can enforce our access to oil. It was, of course, the prime reason why we invaded Iraq; it was also one of two or three reasons why we attacked Afghanistan, too; the Taliban would not satisfactorily negotiate on building an oil pipeline from the Transcaspian oil basin.

Luckily for Hugo Chavez, we don't have enough military forces to invade Venezuela, at least as long as we're tied down in Iraq. So, he can flaunt his independence. But you can see, from the result in other Latin countries (Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua) why MORE American forces are needed if we are to enforce an empire. Without them, the natives are getting restive, no, downright unruly.

Of course it isn't just oil, as it wasn't just slaves in the Roman Empire. Conquest brought all kinds of riches to Rome, mostly to its aristocracy. The people, rendered superfluous by the abundance of slaves, were given the crumbs: the proverbial "bread and circuses," which really included a lot more than that: cooking oil, pork, wine, as well as bread; gladiatorial and wild animal contests as well as pageants in the coliseums, the chariot races in the circus, and also the public baths, in which you did much more than just get clean; you could also swim, play ball, lounge and chat, or even get a massage.

Now, for the equivalent, all you need is a credit card. (A slight exaggeration: Americans borrowed and spent more than they earned in 2006).

If it isn't just oil, then what is it? US control of world markets, or at least enough influence to predominate in institutions like the WTO, the UN Security Council and the World Bank, and to insure that large corporations, most US-based, are free to exploit the rest of the world--and the US itself, of course. "Free trade" (which really means freedom for corporations to invest) was an idea invented by another imperial power, the British, but it serves US imperial interests very well.

If the world, and the US, turns to other energy sources, like solar power and wind in order to slow global warming, and to secure "energy independence," the US might no longer need an empire; these kinds of energy are widely distributed, locally available everywhere.

That would mean that the huge US military establishment could become superfluous! I'm sure it will attempt to reinvent itself; after all, what half-trillion dollar establishment would go quietly into that dark night? Perhaps it will become the enforcer for global corporations. However, can Americans be fooled into continuing to pay for it? They, in effect, would be asked to pay for outsourcing, lower pay, lower standards of living, global competition for their own jobs and US bankruptcy. Doesn't sound likely, does it?

Empires do not benefit the majority of the people in them, although the people are told that they do; empires only enrich a tiny elite. Everyone else would be a lot better off without the US empire. After all, think what the nation could do with an extra $400 billion a year (leaving the US still spending more than any other nation on its military). That money could go to many alternative uses, like paying for universal health care without raising taxes and paying down the debt.

The US life-style could also become de-militarized; its whole public culture could change dramatically.

We might actually become a humane society!